Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer a question from my colleague from Winnipeg. Even though sometimes we disagree, we totally agree on this piece of legislation. We also agree that there is strong support from all of us here for the Winnipeg Jets tonight. I hope they will wrap up this thing at home. The hon. Minister of Transport supports me in this case, even if last time we had a debate here, he was worried that his hockey jersey was not the same as mine.

In answer to my colleague, because we are public figures and persons, we are recognized by everyone, so we have to be very careful and exemplary in our process. It is because we get a lot of attention that we have to take this opportunity to send a clear message from coast to coast to everyone, whatever their age, language, race, or religion, to be serious about that. This is a tremendous opportunity that we can take together to send a clear message to all Canadians that harassment and violence will be no more.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. His speeches are always funny with a kernel of truth, which is something I really appreciate in the House.

We had the opportunity to examine Bill C-65 and we have talked about its positive aspects. The study was non-partisan, which allowed us to elevate the debate and I am very proud of that. There are now just a few more minutes remaining in the debate of Bill C-65 in the House.

In committee, we had the opportunity to discuss psychological harassment with the Conservatives. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that there is no mention of psychological harassment in the bill. Does my colleague think that it would improve Bill C-65 if the government were to add something about psychological harassment?

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to hear from my colleague from Jonquière.

A broken arm is a broken arm, but a broken spirit or psychological wounds can be harder to bear than a broken arm or a scraped leg. Physical wounds heal. However, unfortunately, sometimes the scars from psychological wounds can last a lifetime. That is why it is important to pay even more attention to those suffering from this type of abuse, victims of such misfortune, who in the past or growing up had to deal with psychological abuse and so they were unable to grow and develop as they would have liked because of their psychological pain.

Psychological harassment is a specific type of harassment and violence. It is expressed through people's words, their approaches, their ways of being, the looks they give, their mudslinging, or the way they make a person who is doing his or her best feel inadequate. No one is perfect, but God help those who prey on people who are weaker than them.

Mr. Speaker, it is coming up to the middle of May. The boating season in British Columbia has already begun. Therefore, I am here to encourage the government to move forward on its legislation to deal with the long-standing problem of abandoned vessels. These problems are well enumerated.

I know the government has said repeatedly that it shares my commitment to finding a long-standing resolution, a comprehensive, country-wide solution, as most other maritime countries have, in some cases decades ago.

My question is not about the level of the government's commitment. Rather, I am seeking a very specific update on when the government will return Bill C-64 to the House for further debate. It was two months ago that it was returned by committee to the House.

I will also indicate my hope that the reason for the delay in returning the bill to the House is that the minister himself is considering the amendments I proposed at committee, which the Liberal members of the committee voted down. The government is maybe still considering the fine details of those amendments. That is the only reason I can imagine for why the government would not already have the bill back to the House and be moving forward with the next stages of debate and reading stages. We could finally see some resolution, especially for the boaters this summer, who could be out there saying it is great that an abandoned vessel solution was legislated by their federal government. It would build some faith and trust.

Members will remember that the bill was fast tracked by the NDP. It was quite rare to get the unanimous consent of the House to move it to committee so quickly. I was very glad to have been able to initiate that. I was glad that the House agreed, that the transport committee decided to switch its focus from its other business to focus on the study, and that we had so many witnesses who spoke so clearly about the solutions that coastal communities have been advocating. They were in my legislation, Bill C-352, which was blocked by the Liberal-dominated procedure and House affairs committee, and then voted down by Liberal members. It was not even heard in the House. Nevertheless, I tried to transport the elements of that legislation into the minister's bill, Bill C-64.

Therefore, as a reminder on some of those pieces that I hope maybe the minister is considering now, it being the only explanation for why Bill C-64 would be so delayed, is the government now considering bringing into its bill a vessel turn-in program, modelled on the cash for clunkers program? Is it considering creating a dedicated fee to put a fund aside to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels, since Bill C-64 does not address that backlog? Is the government planning to legislate to formalize the Coast Guard's role in dealing with abandoned vessels? When that was in former MP Jean Crowder's legislation three years ago, in a previous parliament, all of the Liberal Party voted in support of it, including the now transport minister, fisheries minister, and the Prime Minister. Is the government delaying Bill C-64 so that it can incorporate those coastal solutions into the abandoned vessel legislation?

Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud to be implementing a comprehensive national strategy to address the issue of abandoned and wrecked vessels.

This strategy, which goes well beyond the proposed wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous vessels act, or Bill C-64, was developed after discussions with a broad cross-section of stakeholders, interest groups, and indigenous communities. These include local communities such as Saanich Inlet and industry associations such as the National Marine Manufacturers Association. It is also based on lessons learned and best practices observed in jurisdictions in the United States such as Washington state.

Bill C-64 is a critical element of the strategy, and we remain committed to bringing it into force as soon as possible. All parties have expressed their support for the legislation, as have numerous witnesses before the standing committee that reviewed this draft bill.

It is past due that a framework be put in place that ensures owners are responsible and liable for their vessels at the end of life.

We are working in partnership with provinces and territories, given their extensive experience and expertise, to explore ways we could enhance the existing pleasure craft licensing system. At the same time, we are studying options to enhance the vessel registry system to increase our ability to hold commercial vessel owners accountable.

Our government has also heard calls from local communities about the need to address the backlog of abandoned and wrecked vessels. This is why in 2017 we fast-tracked the introduction of new programs designed to assist communities across the country in removing and disposing of these problem vessels impacting our communities today.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member did not answer my question so I will ask it in a different way.

If she is so pleased with Bill C-64 and it is so ready to go, why is it stalled again? It has been two months. Communities are demanding a much broader solution than what is in Bill C-64, but nevertheless, let us bring it back to the House and get it done. What could possibly be the explanation? If the bill is in such perfect shape, why not bring it back now?

If the government is going to continue to delay, can the member please assure me that the transport ministry is using this long delay for good purpose and actually inserting the solutions coastal communities asked for into Bill C-64? So far they were all voted down at committee, so I hope the transport minister has a different view.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that we are committed to moving Bill C-64 forward. In fact, we have heard from some of the communities we have been engaged with that more has been done in two years than in the past 20 years. It took the State of Washington over 10 years to establish its regime. We are striving to establish ours in a much shorter period.

When it comes to abandoned and derelict ships, this government is moving full speed ahead.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that we remain committed to moving Bill C-64 through the parliamentary process and have it come into force as soon as practical. While this is happening, we have and continue to take concrete actions to address the problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels.

Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I rose in the House to ask a question about the EI spring gap, which continues to affect thousands of our constituents. For those who need reminding, the spring gap is when close to 16,000 workers go without an income, some of them for over four months, during the off season because of bad EI reforms instituted by Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

During the last campaign, the Prime Minister promised to reverse the Conservatives' reforms, which penalized seasonal workers and their families. Sadly, the reality today is that nothing has been fixed.

For the past few weeks, the Liberals have been boasting left and right that they fixed the spring gap for seasonal workers. The reality on the ground says otherwise. The government should have taken emergency measures to help seasonal workers. Unfortunately, they decided to offload the spring gap problem onto the provinces. The result is that unemployed workers in eastern Quebec are knocking on doors only to be told that programs do not exist. They are ending up broke and in debt. Is that what the Liberals call fixing the problem?

The Liberals got themselves elected on the promise of fixing the spring gap, so when are they actually going to do it? We can only wonder.

On the ground, groups of unemployed people are worried and rightly so. Last week, Gaétan Cousineau, spokesperson for the Mouvement action chômage Pabok, said that the unemployed in the Magdalen Islands went to their local employment centre to access these measures. They learned that no measure was available because not enough people had signed up. The Minister of National Revenue and hon. member for Gaspésie—les Îles-de-la-Madeleine said that her government had finally fixed the spring gap. In the Lower St. Lawrence, there is currently no program in place and victims of the spring gap are directed to the welfare office. Imagine that.

These people do not need welfare, they need financial support before they resume working. Again, it is the jobs that are seasonal, not the workers. Alain Lagacé, coordinator at Action chômage Kamouraska, said, and I quote, “[The Prime Minister] was elected in eastern Canada on a promise to fix the spring gap. In 35 years as an advocate for the unemployed, I have never seen things so bad. Workers in the Lower St. Lawrence feel like the Liberals are leaving them high and dry.”

MASSE, the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, condemns this situation, and so do we. Simple solutions are available, such as emergency financial assistance for victims of the spring gap, reducing the employment insurance eligibility period to 350 or 360 hours, and providing at least 35 weeks of benefits. Every year, the EI spring gap affects seasonal workers and their families, yet no government, be it Conservative or Liberal, has seen fit to truly reform employment insurance. Unions, groups advocating for unemployed workers, and the NDP have been calling the government's attention to the need for a massive EI overhaul that accounts for the realities of seasonal work. This has been going on for way too long, but so far, nobody seems to be listening to us.

The NDP fully supports the workers and unions who are fighting to get the Liberal government to introduce functional emergency measures to address the situation. Words are no longer enough. It is time for action, time to find a practical, sustainable solution for our 16,000 seasonal workers.

Adam VaughanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for raising this issue of employment insurance, particularly as it relates to workers in seasonal industries. I am proud to stand before the House and remind my hon. colleague about the good work our government is doing on this front.

I am proud to stand before the House and remind my hon. colleague about the good work that our government is doing on this front.

Our EI program delivers approximately $18 billion in benefits to nearly two million Canadians annually. It is one of the most important programs that make up the core of our social support system. Canadians benefit from an employment insurance program that is dynamic and designed to respond automatically to the changes in an EI economic region's unemployment rate. This helps to ensure that people residing in similar labour markets are treated fairly, with the amount of assistance provided adjusting according to the changing regional economic conditions.

In regions and communities right across Canada, our El program is providing income security for our families and workers during periods of unemployment. Since taking office, we have made it our duty to improve the employment insurance program so that it remains relevant for Canadian workers, including seasonal workers, and better corresponds to the reality of today's labour market. For example, we eliminated some of the restrictive El eligibility requirements for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force, and we simplified job search responsibilities for the claimants. We also reduced the El waiting period from two weeks to one week. Shortening this waiting period eases the financial strain for El claimants at the beginning of a claim, and we expect this move to put an additional $650 million into the pockets of Canadians annually.

We are also saving Canadians money through reduced El premiums paid by workers and employers. In fact, the 2017 and 2018 rates are the lowest since 1982. In the fall of 2018, eligible Canadian workers who lose their jobs after several years in the workforce will have more opportunities to upgrade their skills without losing El benefits.

Most recently, we implemented new El measures that support Canadian families through more flexible maternity and parental benefits and more inclusive caregiving benefits as well. These improvements came into effect on December 3, 2017, and provide enhanced support for Canadian families.

Furthermore, as part of budget 2018, we are proposing legislation to make the default rules of the current working while on claim pilot project permanent and expand it to sickness and maternity claimants, who currently have their benefits reduced dollar for dollar if they earn income while on benefit claim. The working while on claim rules help claimants stay connected to the labour market by encouraging them to accept available work and earn some additional income while still receiving El benefits. By working while on claim, seasonal claimants can also accumulate hours toward establishing their next El claim.

These are just some of the ways we have taken action to improve employment insurance so that more Canadians, including unemployed workers in seasonal industries, get the help they need when they need it.

These are just some of the ways we have taken action to improve employment insurance so that more Canadians, including workers in seasonal industries, get the help they need, when they need it.

As was announced in budget 2018, we have reallocated $10 million from existing departmental resources to provide immediate and direct income support and training to affected workers. The government has signed agreements with the governments of the most affected provinces to deliver this funding directly to people, and provinces will have flexibility to deliver a wide range of supports, including career counselling, workplace essential skills training, and associated income supports while on training.

Budget 2018 also proposes to invest $80 million in 2018-19 and $150 million in 2019-20 through labour market development agreements with key provinces to co-develop local solutions that can be tested to support workforce development. These measures will help ensure that unemployed workers in Canada's seasonal industries have access to the supports they need when they need them most.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that the government took responsibility for its actions. Under its dynamic program, 60% of workers do not qualify for EI, and families are going weeks without any money coming in.

We are facing a major problem, and the superficial measures the Liberals have taken so far are not enough. It is time for real action.

I will therefore ask one last time: when will the government finally decide to take action to help seasonal workers and their families, and when will it accept that the training programs are not working? Workers in eastern Quebec have been left to fend for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that our government has been, and remains, committed to supporting Canadians across the country when they need it and however they need it. We understand how important Canada's employment insurance program is for providing income security for families and workers during periods of unemployment.

We understand how important the employment insurance program is for providing families and workers with income security during periods of unemployment.

The improvements our government has made to our El program have strengthened Canada's social safety net for all workers, including workers in seasonal industries right across the country. Important sectors of our economy rely on seasonal labour, and those workers deserve our full support and our continued commitment to ensure their well-being. That is why we will continue to be there for seasonal workers and seasonal industries. It is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do as it creates a stronger economy for all Canadians.

I am proud of our government's work on this front. With the investments we have made in this budget, in next year's budget, and in the budget after that, we are investing well over $200 million to make sure that workers get the support they need in the way they are asking for it in the regions of this country that are affected when seasonal work is not available in some quarters.

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to see the parliamentary secretary here today. He is the kind of person with whom I would like to have this type of conversation. I have a feeling he and I probably might find a balanced approach to what we need to do with the Canada summer jobs program.

I will start with the question I asked initially when we came back in January of this year, following a very tumultuous and contentious Christmas, when we started to talk about the Canada summer jobs program. I will read the question I asked that day so I can remind members where we were with this conversation. I asked:

Mr. Speaker, despite being forced to settle a constitutional court case regarding Canada's summer jobs last year, the Liberals are attacking the very people they claim to help.

By forcing groups to sign the Prime Minister's values test, the government is denying help to groups that provide aid to refugees, run day camp programs for kids with disabilities, and help at-risk youth. On behalf of these organizations from across Canada, will the Liberals finally remove this values test from the Canada summer jobs application?

That was the beginning of this conversation. When we are in question period, a lot of things are being put out there. However, instead of having a reply, indicating that the Liberals did not think it was the best option to be giving advocacy groups, it was the idea that I would not support the rights of women. It was absolutely ludicrous. With the parliamentary secretary here today, I know we will have a much better conversation and I really expect that. The issue is the discussion that carried on.

On March 1, I had the pleasure of putting forward a motion to the House of Commons, asking the government to fund the Canada summer jobs programs for day cares and for a lot of groups that were doing advocacy for their hometowns, for their communities. We have talked about the day camps. We have talked about helping prepare meals for seniors or coaching a kids' soccer teams I have heard of a lot of Canada summer jobs students who have participated in activities like that. This is really a great program. For years, I worked with the prior member of Parliament for Elgin—Middlesex—London on these programs so know the types of results we had. We had great jobs and great kids coming out of these programs.

However, this year the government decided to put in the attestation. The problem I have is that one day the Liberals are saying no to our faith groups and the next day they are saying yes to our pipeline protestors. It makes no sense. I ask the Liberals to pick a side and go with it. They cannot have both.

Part of the problem is that the Liberals are talking about the attestations and then say they have put in an explanation, that people can sign the attestation because there is an explanation of what the government is doing as long as people are not doing something that is anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ. The fact is that people are not signing the summary of what they can and cannot do. They are signing an attestation. Many people look at it as a legal document about their beliefs and they cannot attest to that.

Because of all of this, I went back and looked at the community funding for the last 13 and 14 years in Elgin—Middlesex—London. Not one single time did the organizations fund anti-abortion, pro-life, or anti-LGBTQ. However, this year alone 35 different organizations did not apply for funding, and the majority of those did not apply because of the attestation. They were against what they thought the government was doing.

Does my hon. colleague believe the Canada summer jobs program should have returned to the old ways or does he think this has become a huge boondoggle because of the attestation?

Rodger CuznerLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. The member mentioned her former boss, Joe Preston, who was a great friend. I now have his office. He and I solved a lot of the world's problems in that office in the last Parliament.

If the member goes back to check on those grant positions, those summer student positions, she would notice that back in 2015 there were about 97 of them. However, last year, there were 209 of them. That is because our Liberal government doubled the investment in summer students, and I think the member can get the math on that.

Our government knows that a strong middle class and a growing economy depend on young Canadians getting the skills and work experience they need to succeed. We have doubled the Canada summer jobs program compared to previous Conservative governments, creating meaningful, paid work experience for almost 70,000 students per year.

I must say that it is a little disappointing that members opposite are spending so much time maybe not giving out all the information on the program, and I would be happy to set the record straight here today.

First of all, the attestation, as outlined in the application guidelines, concerns both the job and the core mandate of the organization. What do we mean by “core mandate”? We mean the primary activities undertaken by the organization that reflect the organization's ongoing services provided to the community. It is not the beliefs of the organization. It is not the values of the organization. I would like to point out that applicants have always been required to outline their organization's mandate and the roles and responsibilities of the job to be funded. This is not a new requirement.

However, what was new this year was that applicants had to attest that both the job and the organization's core mandate respect individual human rights here in Canada. What do we mean by that? We mean the respect of individual human rights, including the rights of women and LGBTQ2 Canadians. That is to say that these rights are respected when an organization's primary activities and the job responsibilities do not seek to remove or actively undermine these existing rights. By including this requirement, we are preventing federal funding from flowing to organizations whose mandates or projects do not respect individual human rights, the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is as simple as that.

Our government has a responsibility to ensure that its policies, programs, and budgets respect and protect human rights. I want to make it clear that, as in previous years, churches, religious groups, and faith-based organizations were encouraged, welcomed, and eligible to apply to the Canada summer jobs program. They add tremendous value to our communities. On this side, we have helped thousands of faith-based groups, not-for-profits and businesses alike, creating just under 70,000 summer jobs. However, this does not require an individual employee in any organization to change his or her beliefs.

We believe that investment in youth is a wise investment, not just for now but for the future, which is why we doubled this investment. I will stand with the government on its actions on this file.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is communication. At the very beginning, it was not the Conservatives who came out about the attestation; it was people in our communities calling us. The Liberal government had to start backpedalling because of the information it had put out there about women's rights, talking about it and actually putting it into the attestation. Was that the right move? Maybe that is something the parliamentary secretary can address. When we know that Canadians do not understand, is it not our job to make sure we accept those phone calls and things like that?

When I was in Cobourg, Ontario, a variety of people came to me saying that their member of Parliament would not answer their calls, write them back, or take their visits. Part of the problem was that nine faith-based organizations in that community did not have the respect of their own member of Parliament to discuss it. We saw the same thing in London, where constituents in one of the London ridings came to us because the member of Parliament representing that riding stopped answering their calls.

If the parliamentary secretary could help me there, that would be fantastic.

Mr. Speaker, the member from Elgin—Middlesex—London is an outstanding member of this chamber, and she serves the people of her riding well. I know she has done a tremendous job with parliamentary secretary duties as well.

One thing she knows is that the government will stand up for the rights of all Canadians, rights that were hard fought for and won by many sectors in this country.

When the additional information came forward, that took a great deal of anxiety away. There was anxiety initially. I do not disagree with the member opposite. However, there was clarification. I had 20 faith-based groups receive funding, and this year I am up to 22 groups. There are a couple that have changed for various reasons.

Again, the actions taken by the government both provide opportunity for young Canadians and protect the rights of all Canadians.